Same Sex Marriage?

[KathyTX]

I just have to chime in to say I'm enjoying seeing that this is a thoughtful, respectul and interesting discussion!

(FTR- I think that marriage should be embraced between any two legal adults committed to a loving partnership!)

 

[FireDancer]

But in this generation of "Gotta have it NOW!", is 'eventually' reasonable? Civil unions aren't the legal equivalent of marriage. They can't be. Only marriage is the legal equivalent of marriage.

Ideally, you are right. I would rather go with the practical in the short term and aim for the ideal down the road when the courts can weigh in. Of course if people would rather continue to beat their heads against the current impasse we have they are free to do so. Neither will actually resolve the issue right now, both are a long term battle that will only come to a conclusion when laws are not only passed but deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court.

I think the faster path to equal rights is to make a marriage equivalent (and truly equivalent in all but name) and then challenge the equivalent as violating the constitution in the same way separate but equal did.

In the end I'm not gay so it isn't my rights I'm fighting for so I guess the question for anyone who is gay would be would you rather have the full protection of marriage in the short term and full equal rights in the end or wait longer for that equal protection until you have it both in practice and in name? If they were my rights I would take the short term legal equality now and keep fighting for the ideal down the road.

Something had me thnking; if your religion / belief system believes that gay marriage is wrong, why would the gov't allowing gay marriage upset someone? What I'm trying to say is - there are certain things in the US that are legal that I don't agree with morally. BUT their legality doesn't affect my beliefs. It doesn't make me think, "Well, yesterday this was illegal & now it's not, so that changes my mind on that issue." you'll always have people upset with certain laws or regulations.

You are very right. Adultery is against the Christian rules yet isn't (and shouldn't) be illegal.

 

[kaytieeldr]

I think the fear for a lot of people is seeing their pastor/priest wind up in court or jail for a hate crime when they refuse to preform a Marriage ceremony. I think making an out for the churches against it (they have every right to their own opinions) would make things a little better. You go to the court to get your documentation an actual wedding makes no difference in a court unless there is legal documentation for it .
Maybe some kind of guarantee to the churches against it that they can't eventually be forced to preform it?

There IS an "out". Church officials CAN'T be forced to perform wedding ceremonies between same-sex couples in Massachusetts - the first state in the country to approve same-sex marriage. No risk of hate crime. It's up to the church, or the individual in some cases.

And on the birth rate tangent, that is a huge sleeper hardly anyone is paying attention to (you get credit for being in the smart minority). If I was a strategic planner at Disney (which is impossible, since the current CEO got rid of that area back in 2003 ) I would be pulling the alarm bell on that trend now - what is the value proposition of Disney in world of old people and few children?

For that is where we are heading.

Well, marriage has never been a prerequisite of child-bearing. But a couple of interesting quotes from Walt Disney: "I do not make films primarily for children. I make films for the child in all of us."; "Why do we have to grow up?"; and "You're dead if you aim only for kids. Adults are only kids grown up, anyway."

 

[ZephyrHawk]

Okay, how about a father and daughter or a mother and daughter for that matter? Should they be allowed to get married if they are attracted to each other and are in love? It's not their fault they are already related and they do really love each other, right? Does society frown on that type of relationship? Aren't their rights being denied then?

Whooo boy! Okay, many societies in the world allow for gay marriages. Many allow for multiple-person marriages. I am not going to say that every single society in the world outlaws incest (cause there's always an exception that proves the rule), but its close enough to 100% that anthro classes teach it as the only "universal taboo".

That being said, there are excellent scientific reasons for not allowing consanguinity, in addition to all the religious/cultural prohibitions. Instinctively, most animals try not to mate with close relatives. It's just not a good genetic idea. Our general disgust for this type of relationship doesn't just derive from what we were taught as kids, it's programmed. Children raised in close connection have a general lack of attraction for one another (a fact determined through studies of arranged marriage children raised in the same home) because of the chance that they might be related.

Mind you, same sex familial unions wouldn't technically have the same medical issues....but they'd still have to survive the near universal 'ick' factor to gain general acceptance.

Take a look at Japan and Europe to see the future. The demographics are really bad.

Okay, I hear you, but I also fear overpopulation. When people live packed in high rise apartment houses and stand pressed up against one another on the subway, selection is gonna do a number on them and encourage them to invest more in fewer offspring. It's only to be expected. The demographics will change with the ebb and flow of population over time (many generations not just the 3 or 4 we've generally got running around today).

 

[ChrizJen]

So who decides what church is worthy of providing marriages? Can I start a church of the Jedi to make sure I get my marriage and not my civil union? And why do those of us that didn't get married through a church have to change our name for our marriage? I'm fine sharing it, if you don't want to be inclusive why don't you pick a different name?

Essentialy, all people would get their licenses from a government agency (so that the union will be legally recognized), and can then go wherever they want (even to the Church of the Jedi, if they so choose) to have the marriage ceremony. It seems fairly simple to me. No one is telling you what you have to call your ceremony. As long as the name on the certificate is the same for everyone. So essentially, your union is whatever you choose to call it. All we're asking for is that the name on my license is the same as the name on yours. That way we're all the same and equal.

 

[CandyMandy]

Take a look at Japan and Europe to see the future. The demographics are really bad.

Your are 100% correct. Japan now is the U.S. in about 15 years. Here's what to expect:

Japan’s population was slowly increasing during the late 1990s and early 2000s; it peaked at 127.84 million in 2004.

And then the contraction began - the Japanese population began to shrink. That was a function of the birth falling below what demographers refer to as "replacement rate" - which is 2.1 children per woman.

As Japan fell below that rate, by 2008 it had shrunk by 145,000 people. By 2025, it will have shrunk by 6 million. By 2050, it will have shrunk by 17 million people, leaving its total population around 100 million and falling.

And a declining population is always an aging population.

Meaning that you end up with with both a decline in demand for goods and services (because the population is getting smaller) and a labor shortage (because so many of the remaining people are too old to work).

THIS IS WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN IN THE U.S. DURING OUR LIFETIME.

And no, immigration isn't going to fix this (the reasons being a whole other discussion).

But enough of the "massive demographic change" tangent. This discussion is about whether a particular segment of the population should be able to engage in a fading thing called marriage.

 

[Wall-E1]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sbqv3MwwVd8

Sorry. This needed to be posted. Please return to your regularly scheduled discussion.

 

[Magpie]

Whooo boy! Okay, many societies in the world allow for gay marriages. Many allow for multiple-person marriages. I am not going to say that every single society in the world outlaws incest (cause there's always an exception that proves the rule), but its close enough to 100% that anthro classes teach it as the only "universal taboo".

That being said, there are excellent scientific reasons for not allowing consanguinity, in addition to all the religious/cultural prohibitions. Instinctively, most animals try not to mate with close relatives. It's just not a good genetic idea. Our general disgust for this type of relationship doesn't just derive from what we were taught as kids, it's programmed. Children raised in close connection have a general lack of attraction for one another (a fact determined through studies of arranged marriage children raised in the same home) because of the chance that they might be related.

Mind you, same sex familial unions wouldn't technically have the same medical issues....but they'd still have to survive the near universal 'ick' factor to gain general acceptance.

I'm STILL squicked about Woody Allan marrying Soon-Yi, and what he did was perfectly legal.

I know he never lived with her, and claims he only had a relationship with her mother, Mia, and was never a father-figure to her.

It still feels icky to me. But then I have issues where incest is concerned. Even if I did actually kinda enjoy reading Flowers in the Attic when I was 11 (man, now THAT book was so wrong in SO many ways!).

Okay, I hear you, but I also fear overpopulation. When people live packed in high rise apartment houses and stand pressed up against one another on the subway, selection is gonna do a number on them and encourage them to invest more in fewer offspring. It's only to be expected. The demographics will change with the ebb and flow of population over time (many generations not just the 3 or 4 we've generally got running around today).

Also, in general countries with older populations (Japan) are more politically stable and have a significantly lower crime rate than countries with very young populations (Egypt).

It's expensive from a health care perspective, but socially it's not necessarily a horrible thing to have a lot of old folks around.

 

[Mrs.Toad]

A few points to ponder......

The real issues involving the legal rights to marry are not about romance or sex. The real issues are the right to be a family, to be able to visit your spouse in the hospital without interference, to be able to have the same Social Security Survivor Benefits as others, to be able to share in any other benefits that are extended to others in committed relationships.

I am a 60 year old woman who was born the way I am. I am in a committed relationship of 15 years. We own a home together, all of our finances are comingled, we make all decisions together, our families consider us a couple and recognize who and what we are to each other. BUT we have no rights in our state.

Yes, we have gone to the lawyer and gotten papers drawn up so that we can make medical decisions for each other and to insure that we will inherit each other's property. But my partner makes considerably less money than I do and when I die she will not have any claim to my Social Security like a hetero couple. She will be poor. Yes, she will have whatever money we have in IRA's and our home, but it's just not right.

The point is not whether a family is composed of one man and one woman. The point is that a family is a family. We lead upstanding lives, attend church, take care of others, work hard for what we have, pay our bills, have lots of friends and family, and ARE A FAMILY. We need the same rights, protections and benefits of any other family. We already have the same responsbilities.

I personally don't care if you want to call it something other than marriage. Make up whatever word you want, but stop treating us like we are somehow less than the rest of the community. We are the community, we are your parents, your children, your friends, your coworkers, your aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews.

And I believe that when I stand before God at the end of my life the things I will be welcomed into the kingdom for the things that I have done, the love that I have shared and the good that I have left behind.

Thank you for reading.

This is why same sex marriages should be recognized by federal government. I think it's a travesty of justice that they are not.

This I like. I do not like the idea of giving up "marriage" to the churches as I was married in a courthouse 16 years ago and I would be most peeved to be told today that I'm not actually "married", I'm just "civil-unioned". And what would that make my husband, anyway? I refuse to start calling him my "civil partner"!

But the churches can certainly have sole right to the phrase "holy matrimony".

I have a couple of hens in my extended family who already distinguish religious marriage from civil. It's pretty simple. "They had a church wedding". "What? They're getting married at the courthouse? Hmpf, no gift for them."

Really, if the belief that God blessed one marriage and He didn't bless another is that important, go ahead and refer to them differently. "Holy Matrimony", "Church Wedding", "Civil Marriage", "Courthouse Wedding", whatever. There are ways to do it now without changing the legal term that is already in use.

Absolutely, it's called living in a democracy.

Besides, just because I support SOME laws, doesn't mean I have to support all of them.
15. In Louisiana, There Is A $500 Fine For Instructing A Pizza Delivery Man To Deliver Pizza To A Friend Unknowingly
(For amusing commentary, pictures and links to sources: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/02/17-ridiculous-laws-still_n_481379.html?)

Yikes! We used to do this in college. I never realized I was a criminal in Louisiana.

I think the fear for a lot of people is seeing their pastor/priest wind up in court or jail for a hate crime when they refuse to preform a Marriage ceremony. I think making an out for the churches against it (they have every right to their own opinions) would make things a little better. You go to the court to get your documentation an actual wedding makes no difference in a court unless there is legal documentation for it .
Maybe some kind of guarantee to the churches against it that they can't eventually be forced to preform it?

I think you're on to something there. I think the two "sides" of the issue see this very differently. To me, and most people I know that are pro same sex marriage, this scenario is not even on the radar. I mean, right now, churches aren't required to marry any two people that can legally get married, so why would they be forced to when same sex marriage becomes legal?

It's not discrimination or a hate crime when a Catholic church won't marry a couple without an annulment. Or when a church won't marry couples of a different faith, or even of their own faith when they have not attended marriage counseling classes, or are not both members in good standing.

Conversely, there are churches and synagogs that perform same sex wedding ceremonies now. While the government does not recognize those marriages, they are not raiding the churches to stop them, either. Separation of church and state. Churches can do what they want, (as long as it doesn't involve human sacrifice or otherwise causing harm to others. )

Like I said, this seems so obvious to me that it doesn't even enter my mind that it could concern other people. Clearly, same sex marriage proponents need to do a better job of clarifying that the issue is about legal marriage only and has nothing to do with religious institutions, which would remain free to marry or not marry whichever couples they choose.

 

[Trixieplus2]

There IS an "out". Church officials CAN'T be forced to perform wedding ceremonies between same-sex couples in Massachusetts - the first state in the country to approve same-sex marriage. No risk of hate crime. It's up to the church, or the individual in some cases.

Well, marriage has never been a prerequisite of child-bearing. But a couple of interesting quotes from Walt Disney: "I do not make films primarily for children. I make films for the child in all of us."; "Why do we have to grow up?"; and "You're dead if you aim only for kids. Adults are only kids grown up, anyway."

Oh well that is good then. My dad has mentioned concerns about that (Baptist Preacher) We don't talk religion much so I'll have to tell him he will be safe if it ever gets legal here. My poor dad stuck with a heathen for a child LOL

 

[ashley0139]

Call "marriage" whatever you want. Call it a beach ball for all I care.

But the fact that same sex couples do not have social security, hospital, inheritance, and other rights makes me absolutely sick to my stomach.

 

[ChrizJen]

I think the fear for a lot of people is seeing their pastor/priest wind up in court or jail for a hate crime when they refuse to preform a Marriage ceremony. I think making an out for the churches against it (they have every right to their own opinions) would make things a little better. You go to the court to get your documentation an actual wedding makes no difference in a court unless there is legal documentation for it .
Maybe some kind of guarantee to the churches against it that they can't eventually be forced to preform it?

The law already protects churches...I'm not sure where this concern comes from. For example, the catholic church can refuse to perform a wedding for divorced people. They've been practicing this forever. It's never been a legal issue. I personally can't see any couple looking to have a ceremony in a place where they're not welcom or accepted. You can certainly write that into the law, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[bicker]

Japan now is the U.S. in about 15 years. Here's what to expect:

The United States differs from Japan in many ways, but the one most notable in this case is how fast (to some extent through immigration) the population of Muslims in the United States is increasing.

 

[TheZue]

Essentialy, all people would get their licenses from a government agency (so that the union will be legally recognized), and can then go wherever they want (even to the Church of the Jedi, if they so choose) to have the marriage ceremony. It seems fairly simple to me. No one is telling you what you have to call your ceremony. As long as the name on the certificate is the same for everyone. So essentially, your union is whatever you choose to call it. All we're asking for is that the name on my license is the same as the name on yours. That way we're all the same and equal.

Okay NOBODY is going to call their marriage a civil union so what's the point of changing the name? If we are all the same then they can just leave the name as a marriage licence.

 

[NHdisneylover]

7. In North Dakota, Beer And Pretzels Cannot Be Served At The Same Time In Any Bar Or Restaurant

Arrghhh! Some law maker at some point must have had a bad vacation in Bavaria.

First, I am also very pleased with the tone of this thread. Not everyone agrees, which is of course fine, but we're disagreeing w/o attacking each other - go us.

Something had me thnking; if your religion / belief system believes that gay marriage is wrong, why would the gov't allowing gay marriage upset someone? What I'm trying to say is - there are certain things in the US that are legal that I don't agree with morally. BUT their legality doesn't affect my beliefs. It doesn't make me think, "Well, yesterday this was illegal & now it's not, so that changes my mind on that issue." you'll always have people upset with certain laws or regulations.

Now, I'm not saying that if you are very opposed to something that you should just give up and say, oh well, I won't fight for that. At a certain point, though, the legality or not or something shouldn't affect your personal morality or views.

I have that same question often. There are those who are morally opposed to eating meet but do not try to make that illegal. Adultery is another great example that someone brought up. There are so many things like this why are gay rights the one thing people tend to think should be outlawed for all based on individual religious beliefs

I just have to chime in to say I'm enjoying seeing that this is a thoughtful, respectul and interesting discussion!

(FTR- I think that marriage should be embraced between any two legal adults committed to a loving partnership!)

It is refreshing to see such a civil conversation isn't it?

There IS an "out". Church officials CAN'T be forced to perform wedding ceremonies between same-sex couples in Massachusetts - the first state in the country to approve same-sex marriage. No risk of hate crime. It's up to the church, or the individual in some cases.

Well, marriage has never been a prerequisite of child-bearing. But a couple of interesting quotes from Walt Disney: "I do not make films primarily for children. I make films for the child in all of us."; "Why do we have to grow up?"; and "You're dead if you aim only for kids. Adults are only kids grown up, anyway."

Nice quotes and very fitting

This is why same sex marriages should be recognized by federal government. I think it's a travesty of justice that they are not.

I have a couple of hens in my extended family who already distinguish religious marriage from civil. It's pretty simple. "They had a church wedding". "What? They're getting married at the courthouse? Hmpf, no gift for them."

Really, if the belief that God blessed one marriage and He didn't bless another is that important, go ahead and refer to them differently. "Holy Matrimony", "Church Wedding", "Civil Marriage", "Courthouse Wedding", whatever. There are ways to do it now without changing the legal term that is already in use.

Yikes! We used to do this in college. I never realized I was a criminal in Louisiana.

I think you're on to something there. I think the two "sides" of the issue see this very differently. To me, and most people I know that are pro same sex marriage, this scenario is not even on the radar. I mean, right now, churches aren't required to marry any two people that can legally get married, so why would they be forced to when same sex marriage becomes legal?

It's not discrimination or a hate crime when a Catholic church won't marry a couple without an annulment. Or when a church won't marry couples of a different faith, or even of their own faith when they have not attended marriage counseling classes, or are not both members in good standing.

Conversely, there are churches and synagogs that perform same sex wedding ceremonies now. While the government does not recognize those marriages, they are not raiding the churches to stop them, either. Separation of church and state. Churches can do what they want, (as long as it doesn't involve human sacrifice or otherwise causing harm to others. )

Like I said, this seems so obvious to me that it doesn't even enter my mind that it could concern other people. Clearly, same sex marriage proponents need to do a better job of clarifying that the issue is about legal marriage only and has nothing to do with religious institutions, which would remain free to marry or not marry whichever couples they choose.

This I agree that I am taken by surprise when I hear this argument from time to time. It never occurs to me to think that churches would be forced to marry someone they do not feel qualifies for it under their religion. Like you, since that has never been the case I can't see how it will be ever based on a simple change in who can have a legal (civil) marriage.

 

[CandyMandy]

Also, in general countries with older populations (Japan) are more politically stable and have a significantly lower crime rate than countries with very young populations (Egypt).

Becoming an aging country that like Japan is below replacement birth rate is also a guaranteed path to economic DECLINE. And trust me, that is not a safe, comfy space to be in.

Darwin encapsulated it: YOU MUST BREED TO SUCCEED.

And now to another tangent of that decreasing birth rate story: the American culture that is emerging (when it comes to child rearing) is one of two segments:

A secular population that wants small families, or no family at all.

A religious population that wants larger families.

So if you (or the marketing crew at Disney) want to know where the template of the remaining family universe is going, visit a rural baptist church in Kansas. That -- not the upper middle income couple with one of two kids in New York, Chicago or L.A. -- is what the future holds.

There are also big political ramifications in that trend, but that's off limits here.

 

[Magpie]

Becoming an aging country that like Japan is below replacement birth rate is also a guaranteed path to economic DECLINE. And trust me, that is not a safe, comfy space to be in.

Darwin encapsulated it: YOU MUST BREED TO SUCCEED.

And now to another tangent of that decreasing birth rate story: the American culture that is emerging (when it comes to child rearing) is one of two segments:

A secular population that wants small families, or no family at all.

A religious population that wants larger families.

So if you (or the marketing crew at Disney) want to know where the template of the remaining family universe is going, visit a rural baptist church in Kansas. That -- not the upper middle income couple with one of two kids in New York, Chicago or L.A. -- is what the future holds.

There are also big political ramifications in that trend, but that's off limits here.

I dunno... I tend to steer way clear of the "all the wrong people are having more kids than we are!" argument.

It just smacks too much of eugenics to me.

And anyway, it's interesting how once people succeed, they immediately cut way back on the breeding.

 

[punkin]

Well if bicker is right and we are going to have more Muslims in this country, maybe we should seriously consider polygamy as a viable form of marriage in the future.

 

[Jennasis]

I reject arguments about falling populations (birth-rate) as an excuse to ban same-sex marriage. Gays and lesbians who marry will either start a family via artificial insemination, surrogacy or adoption since they cannot procreate as a couple.

 

[bicker]

Well if bicker is right and we are going to have more Muslims in this country, maybe we should seriously consider polygamy as a viable form of marriage in the future.

To clarify: I do not work for the Pew Research Center. I just referred to their conclusions.